James Michael Brannon v. State of Alabama

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 06/25/2010 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 CR-09-0402 James M i c h a e l Brannon v. S t a t e o f Alabama Appeal WISE, P r e s i d i n g from W i n s t o n C i r c u i t (CC-06-45) Court Judge. The a p p e l l a n t , James M i c h a e l B r a n n o n , was i n d i c t e d f o r two c o u n t s o f c a p i t a l m u r d e r f o r t h e k i l l i n g Count I committed charged him with i tduring murder t h e course made o f Bruce capital of a kidnapping, Pigg. b e c a u s e he § 13A-5- CR-09-0402 4 0 ( a ) ( 4 ) , A l a . Code 1975, and Count I I c h a r g e d him w i t h murder made c a p i t a l b e c a u s e he c o m m i t t e d i t d u r i n g robbery, § convicted 13A-5-40(a)(2), o f two c o u n t s 13A-6-2(a)(3), to serve A l a . Code concurrent 1975. of felony-murder, A l a . Code 1 9 7 5 . t h e course of a Brannon a violation was of § 1 The t r i a l c o u r t s e n t e n c e d h i m terms o f f o r t y years i n prison. d i d n o t f i l e any post-judgment motions. The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d This appeal Brannon followed. evidence t h a t the v i c t i m , Bruce Pigg, was t h e c o u s i n o f H e a t h Y o r k ; t h a t , i n J a n u a r y 2006, B r a n n o n was living and t h a t P i g g bought drugs from J a r r e t t . w i t h Y o r k ; t h a t Heath J a r r e t t J a n u a r y 30, marijuana marijuana. was a d r u g dealer; A few weeks before 2006, P i g g t o l d Y o r k t h a t f o u r pounds o f J a r r e t t ' s was m i s s i n g . Jarrett b e l i e v e d Pigg had taken the A b o u t two weeks b e f o r e J a n u a r y 30, 2006, t h e r e was an i n c i d e n t where P i g g was a t J a r r e t t ' s home a n d J a r r e t t w o u l d not l e t him l e a v e . J a r r e t t l e t Pigg telephone h i s f a t h e r , and P i g g t o l d h i s f a t h e r J a r r e t t w o u l d n o t l e t h i m l e a v e u n l e s s he came up w i t h $2,000 o r $ 3 , 0 0 0 . York went to Jarrett's Pigg's f a t h e r telephoned residence, and J a r r e t t York, eventually At thebeginning of the t r i a l , the t r i a l court noted that t h e S t a t e was n o t t r y i n g t h e c a s e as a c a p i t a l c a s e a n d t h a t the t r i a l would i n v o l v e t h e felony-murder charges. 1 2 CR-09-0402 released Pigg after J a r r e t t had Pigg s i g n something l i k e an "IOU." York t e s t i f i e d t h a t , on J a n u a r y 3 0 , 2006, J a r r e t t , G a b r i e l Moreno, he, Brannon, a n d D e r e k B o y d were a t P i s g a h Bridge d r i n k i n g a n d t h a t B r a n n o n , J a r r e t t , a n d B o y d t a l k e d a b o u t what they At were g o i n g some p o i n t , t o do a b o u t P i g g a n d t h e m i s s i n g Jarrett s a i d he w o u l d g i v e marijuana. someone money i f t h e y w o u l d b r i n g P i g g t o h i m , a n d B r a n n o n s a i d he w o u l d J a r r e t t up on t h a t o f f e r . t o J a r r e t t ' s house. They a l l l e f t take a n d e v e n t u a l l y went Y o r k t e s t i f i e d t h a t , w h i l e t h e y were a t J a r r e t t ' s house, they d e c i d e d they would g e t h i s v e h i c l e s t u c k behind histrailer a n d t h e n g e t P i g g t o come p u l l h i m o u t . The S t a t e p r e s e n t e d Moreno, and Boyd l e f t e v i d e n c e t h a t Brannon, York, J a r r e t t , a n d went t o Y o r k ' s t r a i l e r ; t h a t they g o t Y o r k ' s v e h i c l e s t u c k b e h i n d h i s t r a i l e r ; t h a t B r a n n o n went t o g e t P i g g ; t h a t J a r r e t t , Moreno, and Boyd h i d i n t h e woods; t h a t B r a n n o n came b a c k i n h i s v e h i c l e ; a n d t h a t P i g g a r r i v e d d r i v i n g h i s own v e h i c l e . A f t e r Pigg got out of h i s v e h i c l e , J a r r e t t a t t a c k e d P i g g w i t h a s t i c k a n d a s k e d a b o u t where h i s money was. Brannon a l s o s t a r t e d h i t t i n g P i g g w i t h h i s f i s t s . A t one p o i n t , P i g g was on t h e g r o u n d , B r a n n o n h a d a g u n , a n d 3 CR-09-0402 Brannon fired presented a shot between Pigg's legs. The S t a t e evidence that J a r r e t t used z i p t i e s t o b i n d also Pigg's w r i s t s ; t h a t J a r r e t t and Brannon s t a r t e d p u t t i n g P i g g i n t o t h e back of Pigg's to break Jarrett Pigg's left v e h i c l e ; t h a t B o y d was a f r a i d t h e y were legs, the area s o he h e l p e d i n Pigg's them; t h a t vehicle with going Brannon and P i g g ; and t h a t t h e y went t o J a r r e t t ' s home. Y o r k t e s t i f i e d t h a t , some t i m e l a t e r , B o y d p i c k e d h i m up and took him t o J a r r e t t ' s ; t h a t "'He's b a r e l y b r e a t h i n g ' " ; take Pigg he g o t o u t a n d t h e y t h a t he t o l d t o the h o s p i t a l ; that said, them t h e y n e e d e d t o somebody t h e n said, "'He's d e a d ' " ; t h a t he t o l d B o y d t o t a k e h i m home; t h a t he l a t e r g o t his brother t o take him t o t a l k t o law enforcement officers; and t h a t he r e p o r t e d t h e i n c i d e n t t o C h i e f D o n a l d B a k e r o f t h e Addison P o l i c e Department. Boyd t e s t i f i e d that, (R. 54.) a t some p o i n t a f t e r they put Pigg i n t o t h e v e h i c l e , he t o o k Moreno t o a f r i e n d ' s h o u s e ; t h a t , as he was on h i s way home, he saw P i g g ' s vehicle at Jarrett's h o u s e , a n d he s t o p p e d ; t h a t he saw P i g g l y i n g on h i s b a c k i n J a r r e t t ' s b a c k y a r d ; a n d t h a t P i g g was c o n s c i o u s , and J a r r e t t were s t i l l and Brannon k i c k i n g him around and y e l l i n g a t him. 4 CR-09-0402 He a l s o t e s t i f i e d Jarrett; his t h a t between f i v e cousin front; that h i s cousin lived with a n d t e n m i n u t e s a f t e r he a r r i v e d , p u l l e d up w i t h that h i s cousin and h e r c h i l d her c h i l d ; told that he went h i m he h a d b l o o d around on h i s p a n t s ; t h a t he went i n t o t h e h o u s e , g o t h i s c o u s i n t o g i v e h i m a p a i r of pants, a n d t o l d h i s c o u s i n t o l e a v e ; t h a t , when he came o u t o f t h e h o u s e , P i g g was i n t h e b a c k o f h i s v e h i c l e ; t h a t Pigg was n o t c o n s c i o u s , that he told Brannon h o s p i t a l , but they b u t he was b r e a t h i n g a n d h a d a p u l s e ; and J a r r e t t they should take Pigg to a d i d not; t h a t Brannon p u l l e d h i s r e v o l v e r and t o l d h i m he was c o m i n g w i t h them; that J a r r e t t got into P i g g ' s v e h i c l e ; t h a t he g o t i n t o h i s v e h i c l e , a n d B r a n n o n g o t i n t o t h e v e h i c l e w i t h t h e gun; t h a t Brannon t o l d him t o f o l l o w J a r r e t t ; t h a t t h e y e n d e d u p somewhere i n J a s p e r ; and J a r r e t t made h i m h e l p them t a k e P i g g and p u t h i m o u t i n t h e woods; that t h a t Brannon out o f the v e h i c l e Jarrett drove Pigg's v e h i c l e down some o t h e r b a c k r o a d s a n d l e f t i t ; a n d t h a t picked up J a r r e t t ultimately, they and l e f t . stopped Boyd further testified a t t h e Econo Lodge they that, m o t e l i n Good Hope; t h a t J a r r e t t r e n t e d a room t h e r e , a n d t h e y l e f t Brannon a t t h e room; t h a t he d r o p p e d J a r r e t t o f f a t J a r r e t t ' s f r i e n d ' s 5 CR-09-0402 h o u s e ; t h a t , a f t e r he d r o p p e d o f f J a r r e t t , he t e l e p h o n e d h i s m o t h e r , g o t t h e t e l e p h o n e number f o r B a k e r , t e l e p h o n e d B a k e r , and he s a i d he was c o m i n g i n t o g i v e h i m h i s s t a t e m e n t ; a n d t h a t l a t e r made a s t a t e m e n t t o B a k e r . Law Lodge enforcement o f f i c e r s and found B r a n n o n . s u b s e q u e n t l y went t o t h e E c o n o When he was t a k e n into custody, B r a n n o n was w e a r i n g a c a m o u f l a g e j a c k e t t h a t h a d b l o o d Later, officers lying went t o a n o t h e r r e s i d e n c e on a c o u c h . t h a t had blood At that time, they and found Jarrett found a green on i t on t h e c o u c h n e x t t o J a r r e t t . on i t . jacket Forensic t e s t i n g i n d i c a t e d t h a t b l o o d on t h e two j a c k e t s was c o n s i s t e n t with Pigg's DNA profile. Finally, the State presented evidence that law enforcement o f f i c e r s found Pigg's v e h i c l e i n W a l k e r C o u n t y a n d t h a t o f f i c e r s f o u n d P i g g ' s body i n a wooded area i n Winston County. I. Brannon argues t h a t t h e t r i a l the camouflage because jacket the State custody f o r them. court erroneously and t h e green d i d not e s t a b l i s h However, d u r i n g jacket into an a d e q u a t e admitted evidence chain the t r i a l , Crystal of Kissel t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e was p r e v i o u s l y t h e s e c t i o n s u p e r v i s o r f o r 6 CR-09-0402 the forensic biology Forensic Sciences contained paper that paper testimony, bags c o n t a i n i n g bag evidence without positive profile. there on b o t h items jackets law a box t h a t of c l o t h i n g ; a camouflage j a c k e t ; a green Kissel were a r e a s and t h a t Further, 2 various jacket. of the jackets objection. f o r blood blood contained photographs objection, that o f t h e Alabama Department o f ("ADFS"); t h a t she h a d r e c e i v e d one p a p e r b a g c o n t a i n e d another the section were also and t h a t During admitted testified, into without that were forensic testing indicated that was on b o t h j a c k e t s her consistent enforcement with officers Pigg's DNA testified, w i t h o u t o b j e c t i o n , t h a t B r a n n o n was w e a r i n g a g r e e n c a m o u f l a g e j a c k e t when he was t a k e n i n t o c u s t o d y and t h a t a g r e e n was on the couch next to J a r r e t t when they found jacket him. Therefore, t h e a d m i s s i o n o f t h e j a c k e t s was c u m u l a t i v e t o t h e testimony of Kissel and the law enforcement officers. " [ E v i d e n c e ] t h a t may be i n a d m i s s i b l e may be r e n d e r e d h a r m l e s s Brannon had p r e v i o u s l y filed a p r e t r i a l motion t o suppress evidence i n t h i s case. However, t h e t r i a l c o u r t d i d n o t r u l e on t h a t m o t i o n b e f o r e t r i a l . F u r t h e r , Brannon d i d not r a i s e t h e i s s u e o f t h e motion t o suppress u n t i l t h e day a f t e r K i s s e l had t e s t i f i e d . 2 7 CR-09-0402 by prior or subsequent l a w f u l testimony from which 650 So. 2d grounds, 1995). clear the 538, Ex 510, 103 S. R. Ct. the of doubt United California, of the Ed. U.S. these 18, the without v. (Ala. as jury the 2d S. Ct. propriety of of U.S. 824, 499, See also 17 error, See have admission (1983). harmless. App. "is i t would 96 87 other Crim. 461 or State, on a whole, Hasting, circumstances, j a c k e t s was W h i t e v. 239 that States 386 Under 2d even L. same e f f e c t 1994), o v e r r u l e d entire record 76 admission inferred." So. guilty" 1974, (1967). App. 669 reasonable jackets. Chapman v . the Rivers, a verdict actual 705 a be ( A l a . C r i m . App. reviewing beyond the 2d 541 parte After returned same f a c t s c a n to the L. i f any, Rule 45, Ed. in Ala. P. II. N e x t , we must address felony-murder c o n v i c t i o n s . (Ala. 1 9 9 9 ) , the Alabama 2 ( a ) ( 3 ) , A l a . Code 1975, i t provides supreme prohibit the I n Ex p a r t e Supreme C o u r t Rice, held also multiple two 766 143 So. that § 2d 13A-6- c r e a t e s a s i n g l e o f f e n s e , even though a l t e r n a t i v e methods o f p r o v i n g court Brannon's held that convictions 8 double and the offense. jeopardy multiple The principles sentences for CR-09-0402 felony-murder i f the c o n v i c t i o n s single k i l l i n g . count In t h i s of felony-murder c o n v i c t e d o f and sentences c a s e , B r a n n o n was arise from c o n v i c t e d of d u r i n g a k i d n a p p i n g and felony-murder during a robbery. the murder o f P i g g . and one one count Both c o n v i c t i o n s arose a of from T h e r e f o r e , B r a n n o n c o u l d n o t p r o p e r l y be sentenced f o r two counts of felony-murder. The t r i a l c o u r t s e n t e n c e d B r a n n o n t o s e r v e c o n c u r r e n t t e r m s o f forty years i n p r i s o n . However, i n R i c e , t h e supreme c o u r t held: "We n o t e t h a t m e r e l y o r d e r i n g t h a t R i c e ' s s e n t e n c e s run concurrently is not a constitutionally a c c e p t a b l e o p t i o n . The Supreme C o u r t s t a t e d i n B a l l v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , 470 U.S. 856, 864-65, 105 S. C t . 1668, 84 L. Ed. 2d 740 ( 1 9 8 5 ) : "'The remedy of o r d e r i n g one of the s e n t e n c e s t o be s e r v e d c o n c u r r e n t l y w i t h t h e o t h e r c a n n o t be s q u a r e d w i t h C o n g r e s s ' i n t e n t i o n . One o f t h e c o n v i c t i o n s , as w e l l as i t s c o n c u r r e n t s e n t e n c e , i s u n a u t h o r i z e d punishment f o r a separate o f f e n s e . See M i s s o u r i v. H u n t e r , 459 U.S. 359, 3 6 8 [ , 103 S. C t . 673, 74 L. Ed. 2d 535] ( 1 9 8 3 ) . "'The second conviction, whose concomitant sentence is served c o n c u r r e n t l y , does n o t e v a p o r a t e s i m p l y because of the concurrence of the sentence. The s e p a r a t e c o n v i c t i o n , a p a r t f r o m t h e c o n c u r r e n t s e n t e n c e , has p o t e n t i a l a d v e r s e c o l l a t e r a l c o n s e q u e n c e s t h a t may n o t be ignored. F o r e x a m p l e , t h e p r e s e n c e o f two c o n v i c t i o n s on t h e r e c o r d may d e l a y t h e 9 CR-09-0402 defendant's eligibility for parole or r e s u l t i n an i n c r e a s e d s e n t e n c e u n d e r a r e c i d i v i s t statute for a future offense. M o r e o v e r , t h e s e c o n d c o n v i c t i o n may be u s e d t o i m p e a c h t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c r e d i b i l i t y and certainly carries the societal stigma a c c o m p a n y i n g any c r i m i n a l c o n v i c t i o n . See B e n t o n v. M a r y l a n d , 395 U.S. 784, 7 9 0 - 9 1 [ , 89 S. C t . 2056, 23 L. Ed. 2d 707] (1969); S i b r o n v. New Y o r k , 392 U.S. 40, 5 4 - 5 6 [ , 88 S. C t . 1889, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917] (1968). Thus, t h e s e c o n d c o n v i c t i o n , e v e n i f i t r e s u l t s i n no g r e a t e r s e n t e n c e , i s an impermissible punishment.' "See, a l s o , R o l l i n g v. S t a t e , C r i m . App. 1995)]. [673 So. 2d 812 (Ala. " N e i t h e r i s i t an a c c e p t a b l e o p t i o n t o m e r e l y vacate one of Rice's convictions and its corresponding sentence. The j u r y s p e c i f i c a l l y f o u n d t h a t R i c e had v i o l a t e d § 13A-6-2(a)(3) i n two d i f f e r e n t ways -- by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a k i d n a p p i n g and c a u s i n g T a y l o r ' s d e a t h and by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a r o b b e r y and c a u s i n g T a y l o r ' s d e a t h . B a s e d on t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t ' s v a c a t i n g one o f R i c e ' s c o n v i c t i o n s and i t s c o r r e s p o n d i n g s e n t e n c e would have the effect, albeit unintended, of n u l l i f y i n g a p a r t of the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t . We t h i n k the b e t t e r approach i s f o r the Court of C r i m i n a l A p p e a l s t o remand t h e c a s e t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t f o r t h e e n t r y o f a new o r d e r -- an o r d e r t h a t a d j u d g e s R i c e g u i l t y o f T a y l o r ' s m u r d e r and s e n t e n c e s him f o r that single offense." R i c e , 766 for So. 2d a t 152-53. Therefore, Brannon's c o n v i c t i o n s two c o u n t s o f f e l o n y m u r d e r c a n n o t s t a n d . remand t h i s c a s e f o r t h e t r i a l Accordingly, c o u r t t o e n t e r a new order a d j u d g e s B r a n n o n g u i l t y o f P i g g ' s m u r d e r and s e n t e n c e s him 10 we that for CR-09-0402 that single offense. The t r i a l c o u r t s h a l l t a k e a l l n e c e s s a r y a c t i o n t o s e e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c l e r k makes due r e t u r n t o t h i s court a t t h e e a r l i e s t p o s s i b l e t i m e a n d w i t h i n 42 d a y s a f t e r the r e l e a s e of this opinion. REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. W e l c h , Windom, K e l l u m , a n d M a i n , J J . , c o n c u r . 11

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.